The court emphasized the relevance of evidence from other proceedings, the principles of res ipsa loquitor, and the application of Section 11-A of the Industrial Dispute Act in determining the workman's relief.

The petitioner is a workman. He has come forward to challenge the Award passed by the first respondent - Labour Court, Vellore in I.D.No.70 of 1996 dated 08.01.2001. By the impugned Award, the Labour Court declined to grant any relief to the petitioner.

2. The writ petition was admitted on 28.09.2001. On notice from this Court, the second respondent had filed a counter affidavit dated 31.03.2008.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as follows:

The petitioner was working as a Driver in the second respondent Corporation since 15.06.1976. On 24.04.1994, when he was driving the bus bearing Registration No.TML 2957 from Agraharam Village to Vellore, the bus met with an accident at Mullipalayam near Vellore. The petitioner was given a charge memo dated 01.06.1994 charging that he hit against the auto-rickshaw coming from the opposite direction and that the petitioner was responsible for the death of the auto driver and injuries to the passengers and also for the damage caused to the bus. The petitioner gave his explanation dated 23.06.1994 denying the charges. However, the second respondent conducted an enquiry and removed the petitioner from service on 17.05.1995.

4. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer, Vellore. On the strength of the failure report, he filed a claim statement before the Labour Court. The Labour Court took up the dispute as I.D.No.70 of 1996 and issued notice to the second respondent corporation. The second respondent filed a counter statement justifying the removal.

5. Before the Labour Court, the petitioner agreed that he did not dispute the validity of the enquiry and oral evidence on that score was dispensed with and the documents were marked by consent. It is on the basis of these documents, arguments were advanced. During the proceedings, the petitioner filed an application to receive additional documents at the time when the Award was being dictated by the first respondent Labour Court. The documents that were produced viz., the counter filed by the respondent before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal in MCOP No.445 of 1994 as well as the deposition of Ashok Kumar, who was the Conductor of the bus as R.W.1 in M.C.O.P.No.445 of 1994. The Labour Court refused to receive those two documents and held that the petitioner cannot take advantage of those documents and acquittal before the Criminal court has no bearing on the proceedings before the Labour Court unless it forms part of the record in the domestic enquiry.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to bring those two documents before this Court on the strength of certain observations made by a Division Bench of this Court in Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Tiruchirapalli v. P.Karuppusamy reported in 2008-I-L.L.J 460 (Mad). This Court is not inclined to accept those documents as part of the records in this case. The Labour Court had rejected reception of those documents on the ground that these documents were not available at the time when the Management filed counter statement before the Labour Court and they did not form part of the domestic enquiry proceedings. May be the Labour Court is right in stating that any reception of documents when the enquiry was not attacked by the workman as per proviso to Section 11-A of the I.D.Act which prohibits receiving any documents other than which forms the materials on record. The Labour Court held that no domestic enquiry proceedings cannot be found fault with on the ground that the concept of res ipsa loquitor will apply.

7. Apart from these issues, the statement of one Marys Selvin, who travelled in the Autorickshaw show that the bus was driven in a rash and negligent manner. Though the workman stated that it was biased witness, the Labour Court refused to take the workmans objection on the ground that she was the defacto complainant in Crime No.283/1994 in the criminal proceedings. The Labour Court after looking i